Playtest Update

Truename · Jun 28, 2012

Novem5er said:
Are these modules going to be separate products? ... It just feels like we are NOT going to get a complete game out of the Players Handbook, and that all the cool options are going to be held back for other purchases.

Holy Jumping to Conclusions, Batman! Nobody said anything about these modules being separate products. That's all you. Deep breath

Li Shenron · Jun 28, 2012

I am not that happy with this playtest update...

WotC Golem said:
Combat options (tactical and narrative rules modules)

These look just fine to me. The tactical module has been a no-brainer since the beginning, but good that now it's clarified that you can either take it as a whole or cherrypick from it. Narrative module is unexpected to me but sounds like another good option.

WotC Golem said:
Fighter options

Totally agree that there is a difficult issue here: many players want the Fighter to have unique abilities, but if you define some martial abilities to be fighter-only you always get other players complaining "it's just a matter of training, why can't my ranger/barbarian/rogue/whatever learn that too?". I think WotC needs to take a brave step and really brainstorm a few unique mechanics for the Fighter, and call for multiclassing if other characters want to get them.

OTOH, the article doesn't mention any concrete proposal for this problem.

WotC Golem said:
Surprise

Dang... I though the surprise rules were simple and effective. Now they'll just go back to the usual "extra round" which is a bit too strong so they'll have to add some restriction and everything will be more difficult.

Or they could do worse and just use the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. I hope WotC designers have realized that while this is a good tool for DMs, it should not be a shortcut for designers because due to the fact that adv and disadv don't stack and cancel each other, overusing this can be very bad.

WotC Golem said:
Critical hits

Critical hits are always either simple and boring or complicated and interesting. We need both options. Actually, the simplest option could even be just not using criticals at all in the game.

WotC Golem said:
Skills

This sounds terrible... the change hinted to will open up many more cans of worms. If they want to solve a specific problem, they should seek a specific solution (perhaps using Int rather than Wis for finding traps) rather than changing the foundations of the whole skill system.

WotC Golem said:
Resting and healing

"For clerics, we're looking at moving healing out of the spell list and making it easy to cast a healing spell and do something such as attack during your turn. We hope that this move lets clerics feel like they have more options than just patching up the rest of the party, while they can also prepare spells such as bless or cause fear with the chance to actually use them, rather than cash them out for healing."

Another signature problem of D&D... But are players really having this problem, or is it just in their mind? Clerics have already had plenty of options other than healing in all editions, why should they be allowed to do two things at once? If you don't want to heal then just don't play a Cleric, and if nobody wants then ask the DM to give everyone healing potions or just more HP, if you're so afraid that the campaign will be "unplayable" (sic).

There's this trend that apparently every player only wants to do one thing: attack and damage... So a Wizard has to be given at-will magic missile and a Cleric background automatic healing? So long for D&D being a tactical game There is already a character concept for attacking and damaging, and that's the Fighter, if you don't like the mundane look & feel of it, you can always re-skin it so that his sword looks like a flame and his arrows look like lightning bolts.

Then moving healing out of the spell list (separate spells per day?) or even use a different mechanic doesn't bother me, as long as the concept remains that a Cleric's signature role is to protect and heal.

Li Shenron · Jun 28, 2012

john112364 said:
BTW, I'm not a fan of the -20 surprise penalty either. It seems to weak for surprise. Surprise should be awesome and cool whether surprising or being surprised. A -20 is very....meh.

Different strokes, but for me a whole extra round of action is too much, because if you also roll Init well then you effectively have two full rounds of actions. This can be especially dire for characters and monsters with multiple attacks (although these will probably be much fewer in 5e) especially with sneak attack. This is the reason why in our 3e games we always used the option that a surprise round is always a partial round.

The -20 rule may not look elegant in numbers, but it avoids having two consecutive rounds before the opponent can react. It just makes you almost sure you'll go first.

Li Shenron · Jun 28, 2012

Novem5er said:
Are these modules going to be separate products? If so, then we technically have THREE different combat systems we have to choose from, and likely purchase to run through them or try with our groups. Maybe a few gamers with early strong opinions will know what products to avoid, but a lot of us like options and want to read and test them out.

...

If these "modules" they are talking about are all included in the PHB then I might sit up and take notice. However, if we get a basic book that nobody's really that impressed with, but then all sorts of cool rules are spread around a bunch of add on purchases (I mean "books"), then I'll be concerned.

You can bet that many modules are in the PHB. Just look at 3ed PHB and see how many rules could have been designed as less tied together and therefore removable without invalidating other rules. There is no way the tactical module will be in a different product, and the narrative module also seems small enough to fit in a couple of pages. These "basic" additions to the game's core would be delayed into another product only if they are still too messy at the time of PHB publication, but if that happens to the tactical module my guess is that they'll delay the PHB itself because that's really the #1 module everyone expects.

Of course supplements will be often providing even more modules, and that's not different from the past (think e.g. how many optional rules or new types of feats were introduced by 3ed supplements).

Aberzanzorax · Jun 28, 2012

Forking the cleric healing issue...
http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...ng-not-stepping-clerical-fun.html#post5956808

El Mahdi · Jun 28, 2012

Li Shenron said:
SKILLS

This sounds terrible... the change hinted to will open up many more cans of worms. If they want to solve a specific problem, they should seek a specific solution (perhaps using Int rather than Wis for finding traps) rather than changing the foundations of the whole skill system.

I can see their idea especially running into a problem if one's Ability bonus is higher than one's Skill bonus from training. Even if you just take the one that's highest, you lose out on one or the other, which doesn't seem very fair. You either find out that your decision to go with a high Ability Score was useless, or having training in the Skill is useless.

What other problems are you seeing in that "can of worms"...?

I was thinking of this as a good fix (I already posted this at WotC):

Any Skill in which you have a bonus is considered "Trained". A Trained Skill provides an initial bonus of +5 (rather than +3)
When making Skill Checks, you add your bonus from your skill with the modifier from the appropriate attribute (determined by your DM), and add to a D20 roll. Exception: ignore negative Ability Modifiers if making a check with a "Trained" Skill. (...in other words, only add positive Ability Modifiers when making a Check with a "Trained" Skill.)

This has the advantage of basically keeping the system as is (mechanically), but addressing the problem of a high ability score character being better at a Skill Check than a "Trained" character.

Someone Trained in a skill will most always have a better chance at a check than someone with a high natural Ability score, and at worst have the same chance as someone with a maxed out Ability score. But, it still maintains differentiation among characters of the same class.

For example: The Rogue with a Wisdom of 8...-1 modifier...would ignore the -1 and just have the +5 bonus for Training in the skill, while the high Wisdom Cleric...lets say a 20 for a +5 bonus...would only tie the Rogue with Training. The Rogue would have an extra +1 over the 18 Wisdom Cleric. Also, the high Wisdom Rogue will be significantly better than the low Wisdom Rogue on the same check. (one can replace any other class, ability score, or skill in the example...it's about trained skills compared to natural talent...)

This makes sense to me. The trained character is almost always going to be better, and at the worst will tie a character with a maxed out score (natural talent).

What do you guys think?

Also, I completely agree with Li Shenron, about not overusing the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. I think the designers need to be very careful about making sure there aren't too many things that provide this. I think it's important to make sure that advantage/disadvantage situations don't become common occurances, especially to the point where every roll could end up having either advantage or disadvantage. It would definitely diminish or eliminate the "coolness" factor of the mechanic.

B-)

Li Shenron · Jun 28, 2012

El Mahdi said:
I was thinking of this as a good fix (I already posted this at WotC):

Any Skill in which you have a bonus is considered "Trained". A Trained Skill provides an initial bonus of +5 (rather than +3)

When making Skill Checks, you add your bonus from your skill with the modifier from the appropriate attribute (determined by your DM), and add to a D20 roll. Exception: ignore negative Ability Modifiers if making a check with a "Trained" Skill. (...in other words, only add positive Ability Modifiers when making a Check with a "Trained" Skill.)

How about instead of the second point, making it so that if you are not trained in searching for traps, you cannot use the Wis bonus to such checks?

El Mahdi · Jun 28, 2012

Li Shenron said:
How about instead of the second point, making it so that if you are not trained in searching for traps, you cannot use the Wis bonus to such checks?

I think that one of the core ideas they are trying to run with is that anybody can make a check to try something, even if they don't have training in the applicable skill (at least in the core system). Not being able to use the characters natural ability would mean just a straight D20 roll, and probably not have much of a chance of success because of it. Nobody would even try an untrained skill check if this was the case. Personally, I like the idea of natural ability helping you accomplish things, but I can see "Training" nullifying negative natural ability...basically that's what training does in real life anyways.

But I could see that (not allowing ability modifiers for untrained checks) as definitely adding a grittier feel to checks. Maybe more in line with a "gritty" or higher difficulty level type module.

B-)

Balesir · Jun 28, 2012

How about having a "Trained" bonus of +5, but reducing it by 1 for each +2 of attribute modifier?

This would give:

Code:

Char.Mod.   Untrained    Trained
    0           +0         +5
   +1           +1         +6
   +2           +2         +6
   +3           +3         +7
   +4           +4         +7
   +5           +5         +8
   +6           +6         +8

Training always gives you something (you could even set a minimum of +1 or +2), but ability bonuses plus training don't completely blow the low-bonus but trained guy out the park.

Novem5er · Jun 29, 2012

It seems people think that these combat modules are going to be built right into the PHB. If that's the case, then I'm happy to check them out.

I'm not 100% confident that this will be the case, however. I'm not sure that Wizards will devote a significant number of pages to a rules module that many purchasers of the book aren't even going to use. Also, if the tactical rules module wont take up that much space, then will it be crunchy enough to satisfy those who actually want the tactical module in the first place?

It makes sense in a perverted, corporate sort of way to split these big decisions into smaller products. Not only do they avoid confusing the scope and theme of the core book (PHB), but they can also deliver additional revenue for players that are interested.

Let's pause for a second and imagine a PHB that has all sorts of rules modules built in to it.

Healing: "gritty, standard, or forgiving . . . the following boxes tell you how"

Skills: "You can keep skills vague and attached to abilities, or you can use this specific list and bonuses that are not attached to abilities."

Combat: "tactical, grid based? Flexible standard? Or heroic narrative? Choose an option and use the rules discussed over the next 40 pages."

This could be a neat approach. We are essentially building the game we want to run as we are reading through the chapters. "A little of this... a dash of that..."

However, there's a danger to this as well... a schizophrenic rulebook for a game that can't find its identity!